The Top-of-the-Atmosphere energy imbalance is always expected to be small - the energy leaving the top of the atmosphere will always be close to the solar energy coming in.

How do we raise surface temperatures and troposphere temperatures with a small 0.9 W/m2 of energy accumulation.

Our handy dandy Stefan Boltzmann equation gives us the answer

Temp C = (390 W/m2 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 288K = 15C

Temp C = ((390+0.9) W/m2 / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 288.16K = 15.16C

Big deal 0.16C of warming.

The TOA energy imbalance is meaningless. It is a strawman. The surface needs to gain +16.5 W/m2 (GHG Forcing and Feedbacks on Feedbacks) to increase in temperature by 3.0C.

I'm comparing energy going into versus that which is predicted to be accumulating in the place where the 3.0C temp increase is supposed to occur.

The study is a strawman.

It seems like you missed my question. Are you able to elaborate on your qualifications on the subject which will enable me to have trust in what you say?

Pulling out a fancy sounding equation that calculates black body IR emission that superficially looks like you know what you are talking about, is not going to cut it. For a start the Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn't apply here.

The actual calculation is 0.9 W/m2 x 510,072,000 km² = 459 MW.So thats an extra 459MW of extra energy that is entering the system. That enough power to light around 3.8 million 100w light bulbs year round. Or power enough to heat up Earth by 0.13 °C per decade, melting the ice-caps and glaciers, adding extra energy to turbo charge superstores like Sandy, and powering the winds to drive arctic cool air as far as Saudi Arabia. Or enough to create record breaking heatwaves in Australia, Russia, Europe and the US, destroying huge swaths of crops and creating wildfires and killing thousands of people. No big deal right? To you 0.9 W/m2 might not sound like much, but to a planet, it's a lot.

Edited by Seabreeze (04/05/201314:43)Edit Reason: see PM Inbox for future advice on how to resize images.

Run your images through something (Photobucket, Imageshack etc)that will reduce them to 800x400 otherwise they will get deleted again for being to big.

Oh and while we are at it what exactly are your qualifications seeing as you insist that we can't comment unless we hold some. In the mean time I will use the same ones as the current head of IPCC currently uses when it comes to climate science - none.

After digging through the Church et al paper, then a paper by Murphy et al in 2009 that Church references (link) to obtain the radiative imbalance and forcing numbers, these numbers have been put on a common baseline.

Both Church and Murphy looks at total radiative forcing excluding man made aerosols, allocates this forcing to various sinks, and then states that the residual heat represents a combination of man made aerosols and any unknown factors in the climate. This energy balance from 1993 to 2008 if translated to w/m2 as:

Total non-aerosol forcings (including volcanic and solar): 2.94Heat radiated to space: 0.83Accumulated in ocean: 0.33Accumulated in land, ice and atmosphere: 0.03Total accounted for 1.19Unaccounted for 1.75The IPCC forcings for man made aerosol is currently 2.1, so the figures add up and there is no missing heat. At least to the extent that the aerosol forcing figures are accurate.

So what about feedbacks? A feedback will work by simultaneously increasing the amount of energy being radiated away from the earth, and the energy being absorbed or trapped on the earth, and so does not need to be included in the energy budget. Therefore feedbacks should not be included in the budget.

Oh and while we are at it what exactly are your qualifications seeing as you insist that we can't comment unless we hold some. In the mean time I will use the same ones as the current head of IPCC currently uses when it comes to climate science - none.

I never said that you can't comment here without qualifications. We are all entitled to say what we want, it's just if you are going to claim that a paper published in a science journal is wrong, I would expect that you would at least have some qualifications in the subject. If a doctor were to say to me that I have a heart problem and I need surgery, I don't go and ask some random guy off the street who has read a couple of blogs about the heart to do the surgery for me. I go to a highly trained and educated heart surgeon. It's the same for any highly specialised field. I regard it highly arrogant for someone to make an armchair ruling that research done by a team of specialists in climate science and oceanography is wrong when they have no formal training in the subject, and at best are self taught amateurs. I've actually got a science degree which means I actually know when and how the Stefan-Boltzmann should be used, and I can easily recognise when it used incorrectly and abused to try and maintain a pseudoscientific position. Personally, I don't understand why those who oppose the scientific rationale of AGW are so adamant in their dogma when all the major institutions of the world say that it exists. But here we are, 150 years after it was discovered that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, still debating it. Although, to be truthful, there is actual little debate among the scientists as the science was settled decades ago.

Note, Trenbeth and co assume that the average incoming solar radiation has to take into account the angle at which the rays strike (and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation), and assume that it is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340W/m²)Trenberth’s 341.3 W/m² => Area of earth * 341.3 W341.3 * 4 * 3.14159265359 * 6,370,000^2 (m²)= 174,030,359,358,725,000W or 174PW … (2)

It is interesting that you can't tell the difference between: 1,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000

Quote:

I've actually got a science degree which means I actually know when and how the Stefan-Boltzmann should be used, and I can easily recognise when it used incorrectly and abused to try and maintain a pseudoscientific position.

Hmmmm... Where did you get that degree? LOL!

Paraphrasing a bit:

Quote:

To you 0.9 W/m2 might not sound like much, but to a planet, it's a lot… enough to create record breaking heatwaves in Australia, Russia, Europe and the US, destroying huge swaths of crops and creating wildfires and killing thousands of people. No big deal right?

My (rough MK1 eyeball) guesstimate is that the cloud cover has decreased by some 5% from the early 80’s to the end of the century, and (accepting that clouds reflect solar as per Trenberth’s above), then:

Which is more than 4 X larger than the 0.9 W/m² warming from Trenberth’s (3) =>2,009,692,349,320,170W / 458,913,927,403,612W= 4.38 … (7)

Discussion:

It is definitionally difficult to justify that 0.26% (or 0.0026) of incident radiation is “a lot”, particularly when the reduction in cloud cover would have contributed 4 X the forcing than GHGs in the period 1980 – 2000, and that is effectively ignored (by the consensus).

Evidence suggests that changes in cloud cover are 4 X more likely than GHGs to have been principally responsible for this increase in temps. This postulate is corroborated by the fact that the correlation between the cloud cover changes and global temperatures is better than that between GHGs and global temperature (especially) given that both cloud cover and global temperatures remained constant in the period post 2000. There is therefore prima facie evidence that GHG changes cannot be considered as the single cause or even enough to create “record breaking heatwaves in Australia, Russia, Europe and the US, destroying huge swaths of crops and creating wildfires and killing thousands of people”. Yes… no big deal!

[Note: none of this appeared in peer reviewed journal]

_________________________“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Worth a public reminder that it is not compulsory for members on the forum to have qualifications in a field of science or any qualifications what-so-ever to express their opinions, thoughts and/or ideas on a particular issue regardless of their stance.

Excellent work. So Trenberth’s 0.9 W/m² = 458TW. Thanks for picking up that I forgot to convert m2 into km2. But you have totally proved my point that the Stefan-Boltzmann was used incorrectly. It certainly does explain even more so why the glaciers are melting and we have had a record heatwave.

Did you notice in the image I posted the 333W/m2 of back radiation caused by greenhouse gases. This is the critical issue, although as you have said cloud cover has reduced by 5% since 1983, CO2 has increased from about 340ppm to 400ppm, an 18% increase! You should do a calculation of how much extra energy would be trapped by an 18% increase. Several petawatts I would guess. It's no wonder why temperatures have increased with increasing CO2. I think all the deniers here should have a look at this thread to see how completely wrong they all are. Thank-you for your excellent efforts proving beyond any doubt that AGW exists.

The data in Figure 2 is problematic. The black line, reconstructed from ISCCP satellite data, "is a purely statistical parameter that has little physical meaning as it does not account for the non-linear relations between cloud and surface properties and planetary albedo and does not include aerosol related albedo changes such as associated with Mt. Pinatubo, or human emissions of sulfates for instance"

Even more problematic is the spike in albedo around 2003, shown by the blue earthshine line. This is in sharp contrast to satellite measurements which showed little to no trend over the same period. To put this in perspective, consider the Pinutabo volcanic eruption in 1991 which spewed aerosols into the atmosphere. These aerosols reflected incoming sunlight, causing a negative radiative forcing of 2.5 Wm-2. This led to a dramatic drop in global temperatures. The earthshine data indicate a radiative forcing of nearly -6 Wm-2 which should cause an even greater drop in global temperatures. No such event occured (Wielicki 2007).

In 2008, the reason for the discrepancy was discovered. The Big Bear Solar Observatory installed a new telescope in 2004 to measure earthshine. With the new and improved data, they recalibrated their old data and updated their earthshine albedo results (Palle 2008). Figure 3 shows the old albedo data (black) and the updated albedo (blue). The anomalous 2003 spike disappears. Nevertheless, a trend of increasing albedo remains from 1999 to 2003.

Yes I prefer observations as well.

See, cloud cover has nothing to do with the increased temperatures. Why don't you just admit that it's CO2. It's what research and observations dating back to 1860 have been saying all along. Theres a reason why there is a strong consensus that greenhouse gases are causing increased temperatures, it's because CO2 and methane is causing it. It's been confirmed by numerous satellites, computer models and direct observation. Heck, even a primary school kid can prove it !

I was surprised that the graph posted by BelieveMe in Post #1192649 of 3 May had the prestigious name "Berkeley" on it, referring to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy.I consider that the graph is a shoddy piece of graphical sleight of hand, intended to persuade the viewer of something that the data scarcely supports.It turns out that the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is only indirectly involved in this work, which is a product of Berkeley Earth Inc. , "A newly independent non-profit"Although their aims seem to be worthy, their support base in global capitalist enterprises leads me to doubt their motives.They are up-front about their key project:"From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and we did so in a systematic and objective manner."

Clouds do have a bit to do with increasing temperatures. Changes in cloud cover are one of the more controversial feedbacks for Co2.

So a change in cloud cover to make things cooler may be a negative feedback. Or it may be cooling due to a natural variation implying Co2 caused more warming to offset this cooling. And warming due to changes in cloud cover could be either a positive feedback, or natural variation.

And changes in cloud cover tell us nothing about cooling or warming, as some clouds warm and others cool. And changes in albedo? How much of that is due to cloud, and how much due to ice, or land use change. Or soot pollution, or who knows what else might affect albedo?

nor should they be questioned - a lack of qualifications does not make you unqualified. I've said it before - a degree is sometimes not worth the paper its printed on. Years of life time experience and understanding qualifies as a better qualification than "oh I have a degree" I have staff that work for me that have their little degree - all they know is their degree, not how to apply what they learnt. I have to teach them some pretty fundamental stuff - like why you don't put alkaline chemicals in an acid cabinet - just what were they taught?

I have a degree but I don't go bragging about it. I've learnt far more in the workforce than I ever did at university. Only learnt how to drink and party - but then I didn't do that cause that wasn't my scene.

Its amazing how little they really know - they only learn once out of their sheltered little world and get the chance to see what the real world is all about. Tired of people saying they have a degree so are smarter than the other 99% of the world - elitism at its finest.

Re #1192615 "Trenbeth and co assume that the average incoming solar radiation has to take into account the angle at which the rays strike (and that at any one moment half the planet does not receive any solar radiation), and assume that it is one-fourth the solar constant (approximately 340W/m²)."

The reason for the one-fourth or 340 W/m2 is that the earth radiates heat into "space" across its whole surface 4"pi"r2. In order to make radiative comparisons between incident solar radiation and radiation from the earth wrt energy balance, Trenberth (and most climate scientists) convert radiation from the sun into the effective solar radiation averaged across the complete surface of the earth by dividing by four.

"And that equals as a percentage of Incident Solar => 458,913,927,403,612W / 173494959776754000W * 100 = 0.26% That does not sound lime much! Particularly in the context of known cloud cover changes year on year."

A word of caution on comparisons based on percentages. If we consider the radiation from the sun expressed as per m2 then the solar radiation incident on the earth’s atmosphere will be reduced by a factor of [radius of sun/ distance from sun to earth]squared – the inverse square law. So the incident solar radiation at the top of the earth's atmosphere is 1/46225th or 0.0022% that just above the sun's surface. That doesn't sound like much solar energy reaching the top of the earth's atmosphere and yet ...

"My (rough MK1 eyeball) guesstimate is that the cloud cover has decreased by some 5% from the early 80’s to the end of the century, and (accepting that clouds reflect solar as per Trenberth’s above), … It is definitionally difficult to justify that 0.26% (or 0.0026) of incident radiation is “a lot”, particularly when the reduction in cloud cover would have contributed 4 X the forcing than GHGs in the period 1980 – 2000, and that is effectively ignored (by the consensus). "

If there is a 5% decrease in cloud clover then there is a similar increase in the radiation reflected by the earth which could be less than or greater than 5% subject to albedo. Regardless of the actual percentage, there will be an increase in the absorbed surface radiation leading to an increase in the surface emitted radiation, leading to an increase in the amount of heat absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, leading to an increase in back radiation etc.

"Evidence suggests that changes in cloud cover are 4 X more likely than GHGs to have been principally responsible for this increase in temps."

The sceptic climatologist, Richard Lindzen, does not agree with the above decrease-in-clouds-increase-temps hypothesis. He is reported in the NY Times article Clouds effect on climate change is last bastion for dissenters as hypothesising an iris-effect i.e. On a warming planet, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase.

The Stefan-Boltzmann equation applies everywhere in the Universe for everything.

(the only exceptions are black holes and the big bang).

It is also used to get to global warming's 3.0C, it just that it is never really explained and simpler shortcuts are used in the explanations instead.

Your chart show surface radiation of 396 W/m2 (which translates into 288K or 15C using the Stefan Boltzmann equation with an Emissivity factor below 1.0)

The surface temperature will get to 18C (when we add 4.2 W/m2 of CO2 doubling (and other GHG increases including Methane, N20) with the extra feedbacks (which come in W/m2).

The extra 4.2 W/m2 will raise the temperature by 1.1C in the troposphere) (Stefan-Boltzmann equations applied in a climate models). The surface warms by the same 1.1C as the lapse rate stays relatively constant but the calculations are done for the troposphere.

The troposphere increases from 255.1K to 256.2K.

Troposphere temps are calculated with the Stefan Boltzmann equation as well = [(1361.27 W/m2*(1-0.298)/4)/5.67e-8)^.25] = 255K.

With feedbacks of 2.45 W/m2/1.0C temperature increase, we get an extra 7.2 W/m2 of forcing. The initial 1.1C produces another 2.6 W/m2 of feedback forcing with a temperature response of 0.7C which produces another round of feedbacks of 1.7 W/m2 with a temperature response of 0.4C and so on and so on.

And a small change in the lapse rate to the surface produces 3.0C at the surface.